The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MS. WOODRUFF: Good evening. I'm Judy Woodruff in Washington.

MR. MacNeil: And I'm Robert MacNeil in New York. After tonight's News Summary, three different political questions: What should this country be doing to care better for its children? We debate today's reports on child poverty and family values. Then Democrat Bill Clinton and Secretary Lamar Alexander both address the nation's education needs. Finally, essayist Anne Taylor Fleming looks at women in politics.NEWS SUMMARY

MR. MacNeil: Russian President Boris Yeltsin joined the Group of Seven leaders at their summit today. He arrived in Munich a day earlier than planned to press his pitch for aid. He was blunt about his expectations. He told reporters he wanted concrete and substantial results from the meeting. Yeltsin is looking for speedy disbursement of a promised $24 billion Western aid package. He also will ask for a two-year deferral on repaying former Soviet foreign debt which he estimated at more than $70 billion. There was little progress at the summit in resolving a major dispute on world trade. The disagreement has been the main stumbling block at the so-called GATT trade talks. Sec. of State Baker said differences remained over reductions in farm subsidies. Those differences have prevented an agreement liberalizing trade to spur global economic growth. The leaders took more definitive action on Yugoslavia. They issued a communique threatening the use of force in Bosnia if the international relief effort there is blocked. Greg Wood of Independent Television News reports from Munich.

GREG WOOD: The French have been in the forefront of moves to step up action on the former Yugoslavia at this summit. Today the Group of Seven made the most toughly-worded declaration yet on the conflict. The statement, read out by the German foreign minister, said military action would not be excluded, that the lives of those engaged in the relief operation at Sarajevo were endangered. The British said the warring parties should give up the idea of succeeding by military means.

DOUGLAS HURD, Foreign Secretary, Britain: We have to emphasize, and I think this declaration does emphasize, that the will for peace on the spot is an absolute precondition for the outside world, Europeans, the U.N., doing useful things.

MR. WOOD: Lord Carrington's peace efforts in Sarajevo will also get a boost. He's to consult with the United Nations about an international peace conference.

MR. MacNeil: In Bosnia, fighting erupted despite the Western warnings. Tanks fired on several buildings in the capital, including the office of the president. There were no immediate casualty reports. Judy.

MS. WOODRUFF: Iraq today rejected a United Nations demand to allow weapons inspectors into a key government building. A team of inspectors has maintained a vigil outside Iraq's agriculture ministry for three days. U.N. officials say the building contains documents on ballistic missiles. Iraqi officials have denied that charge and said inspections would violate their sovereignty. The Security Council yesterday told Iraq to allow immediate access to the building. It did not specify what action it would take if Iraq refused. Defense Sec. Dick Cheney said today that he believes there was a coup attempt last week against Saddam Hussein. News reports have said a unit of the Republican Guard unsuccessfully rose up against the Iraqi president. Cheney spoke at a Washington news conference.

DICK CHENEY, Secretary of Defense: I think it's not surprising in light of the fact that this is a man who has, I think, a slender hold on power, who doesn't control the geographical area of Iraq, who's under enormous difficulties from the standpoint of the shrinking political base that he has to rely upon for his support, and that I would say my conclusion is that something probably did happen, but I can't say definitively that it did.

REPORTER: Are you more or less optimistic or whatever that Saddam Hussein's days in office or in power are numbered?

SEC. CHENEY: I think my views that he will not survive have been reinforced by these reports.

MS. WOODRUFF: A former U.S. ambassador and two other men were indicted today for receiving $7.7 million from the Kuwaiti government to promote U.S. intervention in the Gulf War. The indictment said they failed to register as foreign agents and conceal their ties to Kuwait. Former Ambassador to Bahrain, Sam Zakhem, was also charged with 11 counts of filing false documents with the IRS. Also named in the indictment were William Kennedy, Jr., the owner of Conservative Digest Magazine, and the magazine's former editor, Scott Stanley, Jr. Former federal housing official Deborah Gore Dean was indicted today on 13 felony counts in connection with the influence peddling scandal at the Housing Department during the Reagan administration. Dean was an assistant of then Secretary Samuel Pierce. The indictment charges that she conspired to steer HUD money to politically well-connected developers. Today's indictment supersedes one filed last April.

MR. MacNeil: The Bush administration today named the Pentagon's top financial officer as acting secretary of the Navy. Sean O'Keefe will serve for 120 days. Defense Sec. Cheney said the administration wanted to avoid a long Senate confirmation process and get some in the job quickly. O'Keefe replaces Lawrence Garrett, who resigned last month. His departure followed the so-called "Tail Hook" scandal in which Navy women were sexually harassed by a group of Navy and Marine aviators at a conference in Las Vegas.

MS. WOODRUFF: The number of American children living in poverty grew by more than 1 million during the last decade. The Children's Defense Fund today released an analysis of census data which showed that 18 percent of American children lived in poverty in 1989. The highest incidence was among black children, followed by native American, Hispanic, Asian American, and white children. The CDF blamed the worsening rates on decreasing family wages and government cuts in social programs. Olivia Golden outlined the group's recommendations for reversing the trend.

OLIVIA GOLDEN, Children's Defense Fund: We need to ensure that all parents have access to jobs that pay good wages, wages sufficient to support a family. That means we need to expand the earned income tax credit, which supplements the wages of parents who work. We need to raise the minimum wage. We need to expand the wide range of employment and training programs that we know work. Second, we need to ensure that all children have the support of two parents, even if they only live with one parent. That means improving state and federal child support systems. And we must enact a refundable children's tax credit, as recommended by the Bipartisan National Commission on Children, which would provide a net of basic economic security under every family.

MS. WOODRUFF: Another group, the Family Research Council, released a report on the breakdown of families in America today. It said that more than 40 percent of American children live with only one biological parent, and those children are five times more likely to be poor than children living with both parents. Council president Gary Bauer said existing policies must be changed.

GARY BAUER, Family Research Council: Today we're calling for freedom for families in education. Parents should have the freedom to make the choices they deem best for their children. The government should not dictate to us where we send our children to school. We're calling for freedom for families in child care. Parents should have the freedom to choose who, where, and how their children are cared for. There are few responsibilities more basic than this. The government should not be in the business of child care. We do not need a national nanny. Today we're calling for freedom for families in their economic decisions. The American family is over taxed. They desperately need tax relief. They do not need to be sending more of their hard earned money to Washington, D.C.

MS. WOODRUFF: We'll have more on children's issues right after the News Summary.

MR. MacNeil: An arson fire in Baltimore claimed the lives of four children early this morning. They ranged in age from two months to five years. Three other children in the same family were injured. Two are in critical condition. The children were trapped on the second floor of a row house and died from smoke inhalation. A fire official said the blaze was deliberately started using a flammable liquid. Police, who have a suspect in custody, blamed a domestic dispute.

MS. WOODRUFF: That's it for the News Summary. Just ahead on the NewsHour, putting children back on the national agenda, Bill Clinton versus Lamar Alexander on education, and Anne Taylor Fleming on the year of women in politics. FOCUS - CHILDREN & POLITICS

MR. MacNeil: We lead with a look at the condition of children in America and a debate over the federal role in providing for them. Today's study by the Children's Defense Fund found that the poverty rate for children increased in 33 states, as well as in the nation as a whole. We begin with a backgrounder from Correspondent Elizabeth Brackett about the dimensions of the problem.

MS. BRACKETT: America's children, always a favorite election year topic, this year much of the debate shaped by the Republicans' definition of family values.

PRES. BUSH: We try to evidence family values in our own -- with our own kids and grandkids. So it can't all be done through legislation, but it can be done also by speaking out against some of the excesses that regrettably we see in the media that take us to, you know, values that are not family values.

MS. BRACKETT: Bill Clinton took his ideas on the future of America's youth right to the sources, with an appearance on MTV.

BILL CLINTON: When I talk about middle class values and the return to possible responsibility, here's what I mean. I mean I think you ought to have the same future I did. When I was your age, I had no doubt, no doubt that I and anybody in my generation who worked hard and played by the rules would be rewarded.

MS. BRACKETT: And Ross Perot has laid out his vision of the ideal way to raise children in this country.

ROSS PEROT: If I could wish for one thing for this country, it would be a strong family unit in every home, where each little child has two parents that adore and help mold and shape that little piece of clay to reach his or her full potential. We have many places in our country where that does not exist.

MS. BRACKETT: Despite all the attention, children's advocacy groups fear that much of it is just election year talk.

COMMERCIAL ANNOUNCER: [political commercial] It's easy for politicians to kiss babies during the campaign, but what do they do for children after they're elected?

MS. BRACKETT: Today's nationwide study showed that America's children do need help. The Children's Defense Fund reported that child poverty increased by more than 11 percent over the last 10 years. Now, more than 11 million America children, nearly one in five, are poor. And poor children are far more likely than non-poor children to go without necessary food, shelter, and health care. Poor children are more likely to become unwed teen-age mothers. One out of seven babies born to those teen mothers begin their lives suffering from the complications of low birth weight.

DR. REBECCA SIMMONS, Children's Memorial Hospital: She is now starting to develop chronic lung disease. That is secondary to the immature development of lungs and she requires ventilation. The ventilator hurts her lungs.

MS. BRACKETT: Because so many systems may be affected, low birth weight babies have enormous medical difficulties. Dr. Rebecca Simmons of Children's Memorial Hospital in Chicago says the problem has gotten worse.

DR. REBECCA SIMMONS: We have so many more babies that it's harder for us to accommodate a lot of different babies so that we are always scrambling for beds basically. The cost to society is astronomical. The typical cost for a baby who's in our intensive care nursery for two or three or four months is upwards of $100,000.

MS. BRACKETT: Tamika Allen knows the problems of trying to get adequate health care for her children after bringing them home from the hospital. Her babies were not low birth weight, but like many teenage mothers living in poverty, she failed to get her children the immunizations they needed.

MS. BRACKETT: Why do you think she got so sick?

TAMIKA ALLEN: Because the result of getting the shots too late, you know. Giving them the shots, you have to get them right on time for them to work like that, or they catch stuff like that, and from a cold being they're getting cheap medicine, that's not very good for 'em, so that's why, you know, it wasn't keeping it up, wasn't helping any, so that's why she got sicker and sicker.

MS. WOODRUFF: Three out of ten American two-year-olds have not had their necessary inoculations. As a result, childhood diseases that can be prevented are making a comeback, says Dr. Stanford Shulman of Children's Memorial.

DR. STANFORD SHULMAN, Children's Memorial Hospital. As you can imagine, it's extremely frustrating. We see illnesses that simply didn't have to occur if we had been able as a society and as a country to develop the systems that would deliver these simple vaccines to the population who need them.

MS. BRACKETT: Do you think you're seeing more of that than you were say 10 years ago?

DR. STANFORD SHULMAN: I think we are, yes.

MS. BRACKETT: Children have also become part of the nation's homeless problem. The National Academy of Science estimates that 100,000 children go to bed homeless every night. Shelters like this one here in Chicago have opened to meet the need. And since it opened, there has not been a night when the beds have not been full. Kelly Hall arrived at the shelter with her one and a half year old twins yesterday. Like many unwed mothers living in poverty, she longs for the family values the politicians talk about.

KELLY HALL: You know, I don't like the situation where I'm not married. You know, I want to be married and have a family, you know, a mother and a father there for my children, something I had, but I didn't really have. You know, I want that for my children and I'm trying to get that. And I worry about that very much.

MS. BRACKETT: But Hall faces major road blocks. She first must find housing for herself and her children, work her way off welfare, and find a stable partner. The odds are against her. The number of children living in single parent families has gone up by 2 million in the last 10 years. And single parent families are much more likely to be poor. Sister Connie Driscoll, who runs the shelter at St. Marin DePores, says that poverty and homelessness take a toll on the children.

SISTER CONNIE DRISCOLL: Well, I think they have to overcome the fact that they don't really have what they need in education and family life. I think that they're always struggling. They're always wondering what's going to happen to them next. I think their parents become very frightened, perhaps become very, very hyper over it. And I think they have to overcome all of that. I think it's a terrible thing when a child grows up in such abject poverty that they really don't know what's happening to them.

MS. BRACKETT: Advocates for children say they hope these are the kinds of problems that will be addressed both before and after this year's election.

MR. MacNeil: Now, we have two views on the reports issued today about the condition of children in America. One of them was released by the Family Research Council, a Washington-based political institute. Gary Bauer, whom we saw in the News Summary, is the Council's director. He's a former Reagan policy adviser and

MR. MacNeil: Mr. Bauer, do you agree with the failures of public policy that Mr. Keeshan's outlined?

MR. BAUER: Well, I think it's true that public policy has failed in a number of ways, but not the way I think that the doctor suggests. I believe in our welfare programs. We've inadvertently put programs in place that penalize inner city families for staying together. I think that we've not rewarded good behavior when that's appropriate. Our taxes are too high on low income families. We're doing a number of things wrong in the values area. The problem with all these issues is that if you look at the research, children in poverty in two-parent families end up going out of poverty when the economy improves. Children in single parent families in poverty stay in poverty, even when the economy gets better, because the economic cycle isn't going to affect those dysfunctional families. Somehow we've got to get to the heart of that problem.

MR. MacNeil: It sounds as though what you're saying -- and I guess, Mr. Keeshan's saying -- is that there is a lack of coordinated effort to bring all these various dysfunctions under one policy umbrella. Is that -- am I right about that?

MR. BAUER: Well, I think that's a problem, but I think there's a deeper disagreement here. I believe that some folks think the main answer to this problem is more Washington programs, more Washington bureaucracy, Uncle Sam taking on the function of the family, and in more ways. We believe the problem is that parents need to be empowered, that values need to be taught again and that somehow we don't accept this destruction of the family as normal, that somehow we put the breaks on the increasing number of illegitimate births and the rest of the family breakdown we're seeing so often in our inner cities particularly.

MR. MacNeil: Do you agree with him, that it is, that you are arguing more for federal government programs and he's arguing more for a promotion of family values?

MR. KEESHAN: No. Quite to the contrary. I am not arguing for more federal programs. I do argue for a better coordination of programs. They have been put together over the years as separate pieces of legislation and they really have not been dove-tailed and coordinated properly. And a child very often has to go with the family, has to go to many different agencies, to avail themselves of the aid and the assistance that they need. No, I would disagree completely. I think -- I don't think it's a matter of throwing money at the problem. I think it's a question of strengthening families.

MR. MacNeil: And yet, your coalition has issued its report today and Mr. Bauer has issued his report today really to catch the attention of politicians in this election year, isn't that true?

MR. KEESHAN: The Coalition for America's Children was put together early in this year because it was a political year, but we determined that we would be an ongoing coalition, because children don't go away once the politician is elected. And that's the whole point of our addressing politicians. We're not going to let you forget the promises made during the campaign. Children need help throughout the year and if the economic future of the nation is to be secure, we as politicians, as government and as individuals, as businesses, must address these problems constantly. So the American Academy of Pediatrics, the National Association of Children's Hospitals, Junior League -- incidentally, all these organizations could hardly be characterized as anything but every conceivable political spectrum across-the-board. We probably have as many conservatives and Republicans as we have Democrats, who are liberals, in any segment of the American population. So we don't characterize ourselves in any political sense. We characterize ourselves as pro-children and do anything we can to help children.

MR. MacNeil: But you do want to create -- the coalition wants to be for kids what the American Association of Retired People is for seniors, is that not an advocacy group for kids?

MR. KEESHAN: It most certainly is. And if we came anywhere near doing what the AARP has done for seniors, I think we would have accomplished a great deal. Yes, we do want to advocate on behalf of children and see that their needs are met.

MR. MacNeil: Mr. Bauer, you said you don't believe in Washington programs, and yet, your report today is designed to catch the ear of people running for office today, from the President on down, is it not?

MR. BAUER: Yes, it is.

MR. MacNeil: So what do you wantthem to do, if they're not government programs you're after, why do you want to catch their ear?

MR. BAUER: Well, a couple of things. I think first of all we want them to do no harm. I mean, I think over the last 30 years, a number of well-intentioned government programs have ended up making things worse instead of better. So unless they're sure they can help, they shouldn't get involved. Second of all, the kind of things that we are advocating that we want them to do are things that empower families. They don't set up new bureaucracies. Rather, they allow people to make decisions themselves on educational choice, on other issues. And I will agree with Bob on one thing. I think it's important that we not allow politicians to get away with only focusing on this issue just in an election year. We issued the report today because we think they do need to be held to a certain standard and we're certainly going to keep the feet of the politicians to the fire after election day so that the new president, whether that's George Bush again or one of the other two gentlemen, can't forget about the need to help families and help children come January of next year.

MR. MacNeil: So you would agree with the coalition's commercial that we just saw, it's easy to kiss babies during the campaign, but what are you going to do for them afterwards?

MR. BAUER: Absolutely. I think it's a credit to family values that all politicians feel they need to be addressing those issues, but I think they're going to have to get a lot more specific and a lot more serious about them to really pass the pro-family test.

MR. MacNeil: Well, thank you. Judy.

MS. WOODRUFF: Now, we turn to two people in charge of government policies for children. Dr. Joycelyn Elders is the health director for the state of Arkansas. She's a pediatrician and was appointed to her post by Gov. Bill Clinton in 1987. Wade Horn is a child psychologist and heads the Administration on Families & Children, which is a division of the Department of Health & Human Services. Wade Horn, how well has the Bush administration done? You heard both Gary Bauer and Bob Keeshan just say that public policy has been a failure in one way or another. How well do you the Bush administration has done on dealing with children's issues?

MR. HORN: I think we've done a very good job in the Bush administration of addressing the needs of children and families in America over the last three and a half years. You know, I did hear some comments about holding politicians accountable for what they say they're going to do. And I think that George Bush has done a lot of what he promised to do when it comes to children. For example, he promised that he would expand Medicaid coverage. He did that in 1990. He promised to expand Head Start. He has done that, an unprecedented expansion of Head Start program. He promised he would expand the WIC program, that is the program for Women, Infants & Children. He has done that. In fact, if you look at total government spending over the last three and a half years for children's programs, we see a 66 percent increase in spending on children's programs by this administration, which amounts to $40 billion in additional funds for children's programs over the last four years. So I think we've done a very credible job on this issue.

MS. WOODRUFF: Does it look credible from where you stand, Dr. Elders?

DR. ELDERS: Well, from where I stand, children took such a large cut before that, if look at what's happened to our children --

MS. WOODRUFF: What do you mean before that? You mean during--

DR. ELDERS: During the Reagan, eight years of the Reagan administration. So our children have gotten poor from 1970 down to now. We've gone from one in seven children that were poor to one in five. And if they're black, it's one in two. So while we've done such a good job, why is it that our children are poor? Programs for our children, many of them have been cut. I'm very pleased, certainly, that we've seen the increase in Head Start expansion. That's a wonderful program. The fact that every child in America that needs early childhood education and does not get it is really a sin, because we pay for it over and over again. The expansion in Medicaid for women and young children I think is a wonderful, certainly a good program, and we support that. I think every mother and child in America should have access to health care.

MS. WOODRUFF: And how far away are we from that, Wade Horn?

MR. HORN: Well, I think that we do have some ways to go, but in terms of poor children and the expansion in Medicaid that occurred back in 1990 ensures that all women, pregnant women and children under the age of six up to 133 percent of the poverty line are now covered by Medicaid, and that by the year 2000, all children up to age 18 will be covered as well. So I think that we're on the path to covering that. I don't think we have solved all the problems at this point. The President has proposed a comprehensive health care package to try to address the remaining concerns.

MS. WOODRUFF: Do you accept the findings of the report today of the Children's Defense Fund that nearly one out of five of every - - of all American children is living in poverty right now, and this is largely due to a decrease in wages in the 1980s and cuts in social programs that affect these children?

MR. HORN: Well, it's undeniable that there's been an increase in poverty among children, however, it's not because of low wages primarily. The thing that happened in the 1980s is there is a continuing increase in the number of children being reared in single parent families either because they're being born out of wedlock, or because fathers were abandoning their children. And that is the major predictor of what forces kids into poverty, i.e., growing up in single parent families. And until we've addressed that issue, as Gary Bauer also said earlier, I think what we're going to continue to see is increasing kids in poverty.

MS. WOODRUFF: Is that the core problem, Dr. Elders, that it's children growing up in one parent families?

DR. ELDERS: As long as this country refuses to address the basic problem that every child should be a planned, wanted child we'll have these kinds of problems.

MS. WOODRUFF: What do you mean by that?

DR. ELDERS: 57 percent of the children born in America are unplanned and unwanted, 57 percent. We have the know-how to take care of this problem; we have the resources and yet, we refuse to have things like expand family planning and we get out and we argue about the abortion issue. It's never about abortion. If you prevent unplanned, unwanted pregnancies, there would never be a need for an abortion.

MS. WOODRUFF: You're talking about birth control education, planned --

DR. ELDERS: And contraceptives. And that is a program that has not increased.

MS. WOODRUFF: What about that, Wade Horn?

MR. HORN: I reject the idea that there's even one conception in this country for which there is not a loving home that's available to raise that child, not when we have in this country waiting lists to adopt handicapped children, children who are born withDown's Syndrome and so forth. There are long lists of couples that are willing and want to adopt children.

MS. WOODRUFF: You're suggesting that these children who are born into single -- say to a single mother are going to be given up by that mother to adoption?

MR. HORN: No.

MS. WOODRUFF: What are you saying?

MR. HORN: I'm not saying that. What I'm addressing --

DR. ELDERS: And we have 96 percent of children are kept. They're kept in that home. So very few are given up for adoption.

MR. HORN: I mean, clearly what we need to do is we need to in this country address a cultural change that has been significant and dramatic over the last three decades. There is a shift from a two-parent norm in raising children to what is now approaching a single parent norm.

MS. WOODRUFF: But how do you do that? Gary Bauer talked about that, talked about choice in education. How is that going to get more people married? You heard the woman in Elizabeth Brackett's report saying I'd love, or I'd like to get married, but it's not in the cards for me right now.

MR. BAUER: The unfortunate fact about cultural change is that the government has fortunately a somewhat limited role in terms of changing culture and influencing culture, has some role, and it's important for it to play that role effectively in terms of leadership and targeted programs. But we have the culture need to address these issues. There is an analogy here, and that has to do with the drug issue. You know, back in the 1960s, in the early '70s, when I was growing up, the culture supported drug use. It glorified drug use. And we saw escalating numbers of kids getting involved in drug use. What we have seen fundamentally in the last decade is a shift away from that in our culture. It's not -- our culture collectively said drug use is bad and started to stigmatize drug use and started to sort of educate the public in terms of the consequences of drug use, so we're seeing dramatic results, dramatic changes.

MS. WOODRUFF: So, Dr. Elders, would that fix things if we put the word out that it's just not acceptable anymore to raise children unless there's a father around?

DR. ELDERS: You know, I think that we know that this is -- you know, this "just say no" concept just won't fix it. You see, the Bush administration feels that they've done their job when they say to tell them to just say no. If you say that, you don't have to deal with real programs to deal with the problem. We have not. We have not supported programs to have comprehensive health education for poor children. I'm told, you know, in the big churches we have health education programs in our churches. Most of the poor children don't go to the big churches. They go to the small churches.

MS. WOODRUFF: So you're saying that's a responsibility of the government?

DR. ELDERS: I'm saying that's certainly a responsibility of the state or the government, or something like that, to have competent health education in schools. It's a responsibility of the government, of the community to make sure that we have the availability of contraceptives for people who choose not to say no.

MS. WOODRUFF: Wade Horn.

MR. HORN: Again, not to be redundant or at the risk of being redundant, we do support programs for kids and for families. We have seen a 66 percent increase in funding for such programs. So we don't think there's no place for government programs. We think, however, that government programs should be limited and targeted, that ultimately, ultimately, no matter how many dollars we spend and no matter how many new programs we put into place, the things that put children at risk in this country really result from behavioral choices on the part of adults in their lives, choices like taking drugs, abusing alcohol, having children out of wedlock, and fathers that are deserting their children. And we have to get a grip on those problems.

DR. ELDERS: That's exactly right.

MR. HORN: And there is a role.

DR. ELDERS: But we aren't. And the idea of continuing to have unplanned, unwanted children, 90 percent of the young men that are in prison were born to teen-agers. Most of the ones that are out there using drugs, alcohol and getting involved were born to teenagers and these don't deal with that problem.

MS. WOODRUFF: Gary Bauer, let me bring Gary Bauer in at that point. What do you say to Dr. Elders when she makes this plea?

MR. BAUER: A couple of things. I'm still stuck on the extraordinary statement that 57 percent of American children are unplanned and thus, unwanted. They're not the same thing and I think most American know that that's just not an accurate statistic.

DR. ELDERS: I think when children are born, they're all wanted once they're here, but if you ask a teen-ager whether she'd want to be pregnant or not pregnant, when she finds out --

MR. BAUER: Interesting point, Doctor, because Congresswoman Pat Schroeder, who's nobody's conservative, recently said at a hearing that she's gone into the inner city and she was shocked to find that many teen-age girls are having children out of wedlock because they intended to have children out of wedlock. We've had more contraception available every year than the year before for the last 30 years and the out-of-wedlock pregnancy rate is still going through the roof. That's not the answer to the problem.

MS. WOODRUFF: But what are you saying should be done to change this?

MR. BAUER: We need a consensus by the community of adults, including these panelists and everybody else, that out-of-wedlock pregnancy is a bad idea.

MS. WOODRUFF: A consensus.

MR. BAUER: Absolutely.

MS. WOODRUFF: And that that will lead to fewer births to single parents.

MR. BAUER: Children are influenced by the messages they get from the popular culture.

MS. WOODRUFF: Bob Keeshan, is that the way this is going to get fixed?

MR. KEESHAN: I think, unfortunately, a lot of what we're talking about here are simplistic solutions. It's what I call part of bumper sticker America. If we can fit the solution on a bumper sticker, we've solved the problem. Just saying no falls into that category.

MR. BAUER: So does condoms for every child.

MR. KEESHAN: What we haven't done really is address the underlying issues. If you're going to address the drug problem, you've got to address poverty and all that goes with it, because that's what leads people to alcohol abuse and drug abuse. And I think once we stop the simplistic solution as a search for simplistic solutions and look for real support for the American family, for the two-parent American family, yes, children out of wedlock is not desirable. Yes, it certainly is desirable to have a father in every home, all of this. I think everybody agrees, but that's not the reality of America today. It's the rhetoric of America. And we've got to get away from that rhetoric because public policy which neglects children is very, very expensive. Make it an economic issue. The children who are going to be the managers and workers in America 12 years from now, 14 years from now, are in Head Start and preschool today. And if we don't treat them properly, if they fall into drug abuse and substance abuse and illiteracy, as so many have in the past, we are going to be a nation economically in difficulty.

MR. HORN: If what Bob Keeshan just said were true, then what it would mean is that there would be no drug abuse in families where there's economic security, i.e., in well-to-do families. The fact of the matter --

MS. WOODRUFF: Is that what you're saying, Bob Keeshan?

MR. KEESHAN: No. I think drug abuse -- I did not mean to be that simplistic, but there is very little drug abuse in economically secure families. Most of the drug abuse occurs as a result of poverty. Yes, it does occur in other families where there is emotional and psychological stress. You certainly as a psychologist, I'm sure, have had some experience with that, but it is principally a result of poverty that it occurs.

MR. HORN: Well, I mean, the fact of the matter is most people who live in poverty don't become drug addicts, don't abuse alcohol and so forth. So I think that to some extent when one makes that argument, that the root cause of drug abuse is fundamentally an economic issue, that what one does is diminish the capacity of the low income individuals to resist drug abuse. And the fact is most are resisting those messages to get government involved in drug abuse.

MS. WOODRUFF: We've only got a couple of minutes left, but let me just ask you all quickly, is there one presidential candidate right now who's saying, who's talking about this issue in a sensitive way? Of course, Wade Horn, you're in the Bush administration. Dr. Elders, you work Gov. Clinton.

DR. ELDERS: Absolutely. And I feel that Bill Clinton supports children, all children, not just two parent, middle income families. He is concerned about the children of single parents and very low income. We would all like wonderful, two parent families, but we know that that's not what's true in America today.

MS. WOODRUFF: Gary Bauer, is one of these candidates saying what makes sense on this issue?

MR. BAUER: There's going to be a big competition for the mantle of leadership on the family, I guess. Gov. Clinton says he's for strong families, but he's against parents making choices, having a choice about education. Mr. Perot says he's for strong families, but he's --

DR. ELDERS: He's against taking money from public schools and giving it to private schools.

MR. BAUER: -- for passing out condoms in the schools. I think President Bush -- I think President Bush is the closest on this. But I think we need to even hold his feet to the fire.

MS. WOODRUFF: Bob Keeshan.

MR. KEESHAN: Well, I think it's very difficult to put the candidates to a litmus test at this particular point. I think that none of the candidates really has said very much. Bill Clinton has at least outlined a program and his gubernatorial experience would indicate that he's very much pro-family and pro-children. But that is -- the Coalition for America's Children doesn't want to endorse any candidate. We want all candidates, whomever they may ultimately turn out to be, to look seriously at children's issues before they're elected and after they're elected.

MS. WOODRUFF: Is any one of you confident that this is an issue that lasts beyond November 3rd and the election this year?

MR. HORN: I see a president of the United States who for the last four years has been committed to the issue of children and families, one who has put his dollars where his mouth is, but also is committed to the notion of traditional values, traditional families, not to the exclusion of single parent families by any means. I'm saying --

MS. WOODRUFF: But --

DR. ELDERS: If Bill Clinton is elected president, he -- Joycelyn Elders will make sure that children are not forgotten.

MR. BAUER: Nobody's going to be able to run away from this issue in the nineties. It's "the" social issue of the decade.

MS. WOODRUFF: Thank you all. We're going to have to leave it at that. Thank you all for being with us. Robin.

MR. MacNeil: Still ahead, Clinton versus the Bush administration on education, Anne Taylor Fleming on women in politics. FOCUS - EDUCATION - -POLITICS

MR. MacNeil: We turn now to another story about politics and children, this time about education. Democratic Presidential Candidate Bill Clinton and Secretary of Education Lamar Alexander exchanged political jabs over education policy today. Clinton spoke to 15,000 educators and their families in Washington at the National Education Association Convention. And Sec. Alexander held a press conference afterwards to respond. A sizeable number of those present at Clinton's speech will also be delegates at next week's Democratic Convention. Mr. Clinton used the opportunity of questions from selected educators to restate his ideas for education reform and to attack the Bush administration's voucher plan, which would provide public money for private schools to encourage competition among schools. Here's an excerpt.

BILL CLINTON, Democratic Presidential Candidate: I believe in the course, cause of school reform. I will challenge all of you to enlist in it. I want us to continue to have honest debates about the dimensions of school restructuring and empowering teachers and principals in how much public school choice there ought to be, but we shouldn't give our money away to private schools and a system that will undermine the integrity of the public school system. [applause] And the last thing I want to say before we have questions is this: Nearly every problem in American education has been solved by somebody somewhere. There are teachers all across America doing magnificent jobs against imposing odds and impossible circumstances. They ought to be lifted up. [applause]

STEVE THOMPSON, Teacher: Gov. Clinton, when you're elected President, would the next Secretary of Education be one who has experience as a public school educator and who would support -- and who would support using public funds for public schools only?

GOV. CLINTON: You are the first person who ever asked me ever if I would appoint a classroom teacher to be Secretary of Education or someone who had been. No one ever asked me that before. Let me tell you that I certainly would consider that. I wouldn't rule it out. I don't want to promise it since I never thought about it before about two minutes ago when you asked the question. I certainly wouldn't rule it out. I want to appoint someone who understands what is going on in the classrooms of America today, who understands that. Now, yes, I will appoint a Secretary of Education who believes that public funds should be spent on public schools -- [applause] -- and I want to -- I know we've got a limited amount of time, but I want to make it explicit why I believe that and why this has been my consistent position. The Republicans always say we're spending more money on education than anybody else and getting less for it, and therefore, we ought to spend this money somewhere else and give the private schools a chance to do their job. As a percentage of our income, that is not true. There are many nations which are spending a bigger percentage of their income on K through 12 education than we are. That is just simply not true. So I do not believe we should further diminish the pool of funds available for educational opportunity when we're already uncompetitive compared to many other nations and we have far greater inequalities of school spending than any other advanced nation. So I don't think we can afford to siphon our money off. I don't mind good, healthy competition. If private schools want to get up and get going, let them have at it. Let anybody who thinks they can do a good job in education and meet standards and have their kids measure up get after it. I just don't think that with the situation we're in now we can afford to divert public funds to private schools when we're already uncompetitive. [applause]

BARBARA AVANT, Teacher: Gov. Clinton, as the next President of the United States, what new budget priorities will you help to implement to ensure that American public education is fully funded?

GOV. CLINTON: Well, I will begin by noting that we have reduced the percentage of the federal budget going to education funding by about 40 percent under the last two Presidents, and that we should restore education to the position it had in the federal budget back in 1980. That would make a huge difference. [applause] Under my plan, we'll actually go beyond that in the next four years; if we do the college loan program, the apprenticeship programs, the work in science and math, the work in Chapter 1 to equalize funding among school districts, and the preschool program, we'll actually go beyond that. But it is amazing to me that in the last eight years we've had all this, or ten years, we've had all this education rhetoric coming out of Washington while there has actually been a reduction in our commitment to educating our children. It is not just a money problem, but it is a money problem. This administration thinks that other things are money problems. They think we need a capital gains tax because the economy is totally run based on money, not people. But when we want to develop the capacities of our people, all of a sudden, that's a money problem, and that's really not the answer. I don't think that money is the only answer. I'm for reform and change and accountability, but investment counts. And we are under investing in our people and I'll reverse that trend.

MR. MacNeil: Speaking at a press conference later in the afternoon, Education Sec. Lamar Alexander defended the administration's education reform initiative. He called for national tests and a voucher system that would allow some public money to be spent on private schools. He also took the opportunity to attack Clinton and the leadership of the largest teachers' union in the country.

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Secretary of Education: I think this is very instructive. This was a chance for Gov. Clinton tell the NEA leadership what they didn't want to hear, which is that if the country's going to change, our schools have got to change. And what you didn't hear today from the man who hopes to be the Democratic nominee is that we need to literally reinvent education, that we need break-the-mold new American schools, that we need world class standards, that we urgently need a national examination system, that we need to get the government off the teachers' backs, and that we need to give middle and low income families choices of the same schools that rich people have. That would have been an agenda for real change. That's President Bush's America 2000 agenda and I think it's interesting to hear that when given an opportunity to talk about real change, that the man who hopes to be the Democratic nominee, instead, gives a speech that would make it sound like he's running for President of the NEA, instead of President of the United States. I mean, for the country to change, the schools have to change. And while there are millions of wonderful teachers across this country working hard in their classrooms, they know, as well as the nation knows, that the country's not going to change with the NEA draped around the neck of the President of the United States. And that's what this was about. That's what this was about today.

REPORTER: You know as well as anybody else that Gov. Clinton has taken positions very similar to yours and the Bush administration's on national goals and on initiatives to transform American schools, with the exception of private school choice. It seems that you're essentially doing what you're accusing him of doing, which is blasting his record without real evidence that he is against reform.

SEC. ALEXANDER: I didn't blast his record. I said he had a wonderful opportunity today to make the case for real change in education and based on what I heard him talk about, he made a speech that would be worthy of someone running for the presidency of the NEA, which is more money into more of the same, instead of a speech about break-the-mold schools, world class standards, national exam, get the government off the teacher's back. And he's irrevocably opposed to the idea of giving middle and low income families more choices of all schools. So that's -- that's the leadership question that I think is here. If President Bush were here making this speech, it would be a speech that many of the NEA bosses don't want to hear, because they're not interested in real change. They know that change means losing control. Control would go to communities. Control would go to parents. Control would go to elected officials and control would go away from the education administrators and the union leaders. And they don't want that. And the governor had a wonderful chance to make that case today and of course, he didn't do it.

REPORTER: I guess the biggest applause for Gov. Clinton came when he talked about public schools. I understand what you're saying with regard to other opportunities and opening up opportunities for poor students, but what will the Bush administration do to protect public schools or to enhance them, or are you forsaking them?

SEC. ALEXANDER: We're not interested in protecting any school; we're interested in creating opportunities for all children. I mean, the situation we have today, let's take Little Rock, just as an example. President Bush's GI Bill for Kids would give the middle and low income families of Little Rock 20 million new federal dollars, as long as the parents could spend the money at any school they think meets the needs of their child. Now, most of that money is going to go to the public schools. And that means that the public elementary school in Little Rock with 500 kids in it might have 300,000 new dollars a year to spend to open that school up, to hire special teachers for learning disabled people, to have programs in the summer, to do whatever it needed to do. That's the President's program, GI Bill for Kids, but if the teacher in that school doesn't think the child can learn, if they lock the school at 3 and turn the kid out on the street when the parent isn't at home, and if the guns are in the schools, then the poor mother ought to have the same chance the rich mother has to take that child to another public school or to a private school and the government money ought to follow the child to that school. That's real change and that's more change than the NEA and the governor can stomach.

MR. MacNeil: Bill Clinton will be interviewed by Bill Moyers later this evening on many public television stations. ESSAY - TURNING POINT

MS. WOODRUFF: Finally tonight, essayist Anne Taylor Fleming has some thoughts on what's changed for women in politics this year.

MS. FLEMING: The returns were in. The pundits were apparently right. It was, indeed, shaping up to be the year of the woman, certainly if California had anything to say about it and the women of California were in high celebration at a day after the primary fund-raiser luncheon for the state treasurer, Kathleen Brown.

SPOKESPERSON: Is there something wrong with this picture? Is there something wrong? Yeah.

MS. FLEMING: Around the state, 71 women had run the right to vie for elective office, most notably among them two full-fledged female Senatorial candidates, Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein. As their names were announced, gender goose bumps swept through the hall, the ones that had crawled up the back of your neck when you heard back in 1984 that a woman, Geraldine Ferraro, had been selected as the first female vice presidential candidate of a major party. Ferraro, of course, didn't make it that time. And she's up again this time, running for the Senate seat from New York. So is another woman, Elizabeth Holtzman, two women in one Senate race. That's as exciting in its way as the Feinstein-Boxer combo, the two now campaigning around California together, a chummy female package pounding home those winning sound bites.

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, [D] California Senate Candidate: Two women, two women only in the United States Senate. As they say, 2 percent may be good for milk, but it ain't good for the United States Senate.

MS. FLEMING: Indeed, there are goose bumps aplenty this time around, women knowing that come fall they're likely to end up with as many as five United States Senators as opposed to the current two and as many as fifty Congresswomen against the current twenty-nine. Why now? That's what I kept asking myself as I watched these women make their speeches and take their bows. For so long, certainly through the '80s, it had seemed to be going the other way, women stalled out in their careers, juggling briefcases and babies, trying to stay afloat in the surreal world that was part pro-family sentiment and part hard core pornography. The bottom 25 to 35 percent of women, working and non-working, were among the major economic casualties of the so-called "backlash decade." As we turned into the '90s, there were preliminary signs of a sea change, Thelma and Louise, the Gulf War in which American women, even American moms, acquitted themselves alongside men, and then the regalvanizing moment for American women and the wake up call for American men. Finally something, someone, seemed to state the case for inequality, rather against inequality, not shrilly or angrily, but very quietly. And that someone was Anita Hill. She spoke a the language men seemed to hear for the first time. No, that's not right. It had nothing to do with what she said. In fact, in the post hearing polls, more men and women alike said they believed Clarence Thomas. It wasn't about that, about him. It wasn't even about sexual harassment per se. It was about what went on between one woman and a panel of fourteen men. Anita Hill was the lonesome David to the judiciary panel's Goliath, mocked and toyed with. And somehow, American men could identify with the unweightedness of the contest, the quiet, dignified embodiment of an imbalance numbers of women had been railing about for years and which numbers of men now seemed for the first time viscerally to understand. The result is that a lot of the men in the country now think we need more women in government and we're, therefore, willing to swallow Feinstein's milk quip with apparent equanimity. In fact, Feinstein had no gender gap in her primary and Barbara Boxer had only a slight one. Had the two women faced only male voters, they still would have beat the men they ran against. In fact, at risk of sounding a little corny and a little sentimental, not to mention wildly hopeful, given the fact that the real elections are still months away, I think perhaps the year of the woman is as much the year of the man, a turning point in the changing of some male consciousness. And that, to me, is worth a few goose bumps all its own. I'm Anne Taylor Fleming. RECAP

MR. MacNeil: Again, the main story of this Tuesday was the G-7 summit in Munich. Russian President Boris Yeltsin arrived at the meeting of Western leaders. He said he was looking for economic aid and a delay in repaying the former Soviet republic's foreign debt. The G-7 leaders threatened to use military force in Bosnia if relief operations were blocked. They failed to resolve the impasse preventing an agreement on liberalizing world trade. Good night, Judy.

MS. WOODRUFF: Good night, Robin. That's our NewsHour for tonight. We'll be back tomorrow night. I'm Judy Woodruff. Thank you and good night.